Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Boatright
217 So. 3d 166
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Richard and Deborah Boatright sued Philip Morris USA, Inc. and Liggett Group, LLC after Richard (a long-term, heavily addicted smoker) developed COPD and required two double-lung transplants; claims included negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy to conceal.
- Trial lasted three weeks; evidence showed industry-wide intentional design of addictive cigarettes, targeted youth marketing, long-running efforts to create doubt about smoking harms, and concealment of filtered-cigarette risks.
- Jury found Philip Morris liable on negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy; found Liggett liable on conspiracy only; allocated 85% fault to Philip Morris and 15% to Mr. Boatright.
- Jury awarded $15 million in compensatory damages ($12.5M to Mr. Boatright, $2.5M to Mrs. Boatright) and $19.7M punitive against Philip Morris and $300,000 punitive against Liggett.
- Trial court reduced compensatory damages by Mr. Boatright’s 15% comparative fault under Fla. Stat. § 768.81 and entered joint-and-several liability; Boatrights cross-appealed that reduction.
- The Second District affirmed liability and punitive awards but held the comparative-fault statute did not apply because the action’s core was intentional misconduct; it reversed the reduction and remanded to reinstate the full jury compensatory verdict, certifying conflict with some Fourth DCA decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (comparative fault) | Boatrights: action’s core is intentional torts (fraudulent concealment, conspiracy); statute excludes intentional torts so no reduction | Defendants: case grounded in negligence/product liability; § 768.81 should reduce damages by plaintiff’s fault | Court: Core is intentional misconduct; § 768.81 does not apply; reversed reduction and remanded for full judgment (certified conflict with Fourth DCA cases) |
| Closing argument misconduct/new trial | Boatrights: closing comments were fair comment on evidence and jury instruction permitted consideration of harm to others for reprehensibility | Philip Morris: counsel inflamed jury, disparaged defense, argued nationwide harm | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying new trial; comments either supported by evidence or harmless |
| Admission of expert evidence (Dr. Proctor) | Boatrights: testimony admissible and supported by record | Philip Morris: challenged admissibility/erroneous evidence admission | Court: No reversible error; arguments mostly mirror closing‑argument claims rejected above |
| Liability of Liggett on conspiracy and joint/several liability | Boatrights: co-conspirator liability attaches even with de minimis direct sales; conspirators are jointly/severally liable | Liggett: de minimis use cannot be proximate cause; cannot be held jointly/severally without fault allocation | Court: Civil-conspiracy law permits liability for co-conspirator; Liggett properly liable; joint-and-several stands given intentional-tort exception to comparative fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Phase I findings in Engle govern progeny suits)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (Fourth DCA held such suits grounded in negligence; conflict certified)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sury, 118 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (First DCA held intentional-conduct core supports excluding comparative-fault reduction)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (acceptance of Engle Phase I findings does not violate due process)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016) (punitive damages may be awarded on negligence and strict liability claims in Engle progeny cases)
- Rey v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 So. 3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (civil-conspiracy law extends liability to co-conspirators who may not have directly caused injury)